As the many benchmarks in http://www.anandtech.com/show/2901/7 show, the i3-540, which is a lower-clock i3-550, handily beats the Core 2 Duo E8600 3.33GHz which is now the $200+ BTO processor in pretty much every test. That's pretty nice in my book (to get the proc one higher than the model that beats the current BTO model, which is a pretty nice proc itself).

Also, the next i3 (-560) comes is scheduled for Aug 29, so ramping up production enough for the base iMacs would be way too late.

HD
I haven't really been looking, but I presume hard drives have come down in price since Oct 2009, so it's an easy way to spec up the machine to compete with PCs and older iMacs.

Graphics
I know nothing about graphics, but I think the NVIDIA GeForce 320M isn't allowed on the i3s, and I don't see a real need to preserve power or space that much, and a cheap discrete card wouldn't be much cost and would be (even if marginally) better than integrated. Let's say the rest of the components if the iMac (everything except the accounted-for proc and HD) have come down in price since Oct 2009 enough to leave room for going from integrated to a cheap-but-decent discrete one.

Or maybe just Intel graphics on the basest model, compensated by something else (or not compensatedit already seems like a good deal compared to the others, and Apple likes to upsell).

Release
I think Apple would want to release these as soon as they can reasonably be ready to seize the back-to-school season and the iPad and iPhone buzz. And since I don't see anything else of much interest for the machine coming soon, it would make sense to release soonish.

Unlike last year, there probably won't be a major redesign with new displays of which to ramp up production, etc.

Staff Member

I can see Apple sticking with C2D in low-end so they can use 320M thus no need for new hardware or drivers. If Apple uses i3, then it can pretty much be any GPU. It's not really the price, cheap dedicated costs like 20$.

All models have option for up to 2TB HD and up to 16GB RAM. Apple may not use the exact models I mentioned so e.g. 3.06GHz i3 instead of 2.93GHz and 3.33GHz i5 instead of 3.2GHz etc. Can't tell more about the GPU other than mid models will get "Redwood" based GPU and high-end will get "Juniper" based GPU

The point is to consolidate and focus the verbose discussion elsewhere into this thread, to collectively converge to a reasonable configuration and date. Allow me to demonstrate:

The past several refreshes of the iMac have been on average 9 months apart. This makes sense because it's more cost-efficient to change a mature line like the iMac as infrequently as the market will take. Also because that's how long it takes to hatch a baby. So let's say the next iMac will have to last until March-April 2010 (months which also saw iMac refreshes in 2008 and 2009). If your September release is right, all the more reason.

Your proposed specs mean the base model wouldn't see a bump in anything (except the negligible-for-the-common-uses-of-that-model difference in graphics) in a year and a half, and that model really didn't get faster in the last iteration. So the base model wouldn't get faster than the model two years older in the latest refresh. All models you propose see very little improvement (which also goes completely against the last refreshes, which have been pretty significant).

You have a point in that Apple might keep the C2D for the basest model, but then they would bump something else.

I don't see why Apple would use the i3-530 2.93GHz in the next two models, when the i3-550 costs $133, is faster, and provides the nominal 3.06-to-3.2 jump in specs.

Also, I don't see why Apple would wait until Septemberit's not like they would see considerably higher profits, but rather just look stale compared to the competition, which is the opposite of the aggressive strategy the company has been adopting (mostly).

Would you agree on this collaboratively-developed convergent thing, then:

Staff Member

The last time the low-end got a significant CPU update was the transaction from PPC to Intel. It's been what, 5 years, not 1.5 years. Since that, Apple has used Core Duo or Core 2 Duo in all iMacs except in this gen's high-end. Last update bumped the CPU from 2.66GHz to 3.06GHz, that was the second biggest update since PPC to Intel. I just have an itch that Apple is sticking with C2D like in 13" MBP. Steve doesn't like Intel IGPs but seems to love NVidia IGPs. It also saves Apple from writing drivers to the low-end iMac if it uses 320M

Last update was major so I can't see Apple doing much else than upgrading GPUs and CPUs in this update, it's rare to see to significant updates in a row. The next big update is in early 2011 when Sandy Bridge comes

Quote

I don't see why Apple would use the i3-530 2.93GHz in the next two models, when the i3-550 costs $133, is faster, and provides the nominal 3.06-to-3.2 jump in specs.

Click to expand...

That's 20$ more to Apple. I said they might use different model of i3 but I'm guessing 530.

Quote

Also, I don't see why Apple would wait until Septemberit's not like they would see considerably higher profits, but rather just look stale compared to the competition, which is the opposite of the aggressive strategy the company has been adopting (mostly).

Click to expand...

Last updates have been like: 11 months, 8 months, 11 months, 7 months without an update, that's why I'm guessing Sep as it would be 11 months without an update

Quote

Would you agree on this collaboratively-developed convergent thing, then:

Click to expand...

I've made my own guess already, I'm not changing it. You can make your own if you want to, no need to use my guess as a base for it

How about this for speculation: the next generation of iMacs won't have yellow screens and any of the other problems that [according to some accounts on this forum] plague the iMac line to this day.

As far as specs, I think a Core i3 should be pretty standard by now, especially considering that Apple aims to be the "luxury" brand. It wouldn't make sense to buy a Lexus that has a crappier/weaker engine than a Honda Civic. On the other hand, many "All in Ones" from the PC camp are now just netbooks with larger screens (many sporting Atom processors) so that could give Apple the cover they need to save a few bucks by going with something a bit slower than they normally would have to.

Other Predictions

- All iMacs will have some sort of Quad Core processor. MAYBE the base 21.5 will get stuck with the Core 2 Duo, in which case it'd be the 3.33 Ghz version currently available as a BTO option.

- All 21.5" Models should have 1TB HDs (this seems to be Apple's favorite thing to upgrade in each model), all 27" Models should have 2TB of storage.

- All iMacs should have discrete GPU's, with 256MB of RAM being standard, and BTO to a 512MB video card as optional. Perhaps the 27" will already come with the better video card.

- Perhaps Apple will increase the price as they did with the Mac Mini, back to the prices they used to charge a couple of years ago. The prices would then be $1299, $1599, $1799, and $2099. This is possible for a few reasons:

1. Apple has noticed that even during a major recession and economic downturn people continued to buy their products in record numbers (meaning they are price inelastic for the economists out there - so why leave money on the table if people are willing to spend it anyway).

2. Apple may need to distance the iMac more from the Mac Mini. At this point only $500 separates the Mini and the base iMac, yet with the iMac you get a faster processor, more RAM, bigger HD, a 21.5" IPS monitor (that alone is worth at least $400 even with 3rd party brands), good speakers, a wireless keyboard and a magic mouse. Not to mention less clutter since its all in one device. Hard to justify not getting an iMac unless you already have a keyboard, mouse, speakers and monitor that you are VERY happy with and don't plan to replace anytime soon (and don't mind the clutter).

Last updates have been like: 11 months, 8 months, 11 months, 7 months without an update, that's why I'm guessing Sep as it would be 11 months without an update

Click to expand...

That's the first time I've noticed that. Even though it's been said a thousand times an update won't happen until August - September, a little part inside me was hoping for an update next week. Either way, the above quote is pretty logical and it'll help me justify buying my iMac sooner rather than later.

But that they've not upgraded the proc much doesn't mean they won't ever, right? This seems like a good timeseveral of the last refreshes have been quite significant on the whole: early 2009 doubling of memory and hard drives and and proc bumps, and bringing the larger display one model down, late 2009 new, greatly improved screens, hard drive and graphics and proc bumps, some price reductions, crazymouse. So if it's otherwise just gonna be HD and graphics bumps, some proc love is in order. And two years of same speed is unprecedented and lame. Also I doubt Intel wants to keep producing the C2Ds in a large scale.

I think going to the i3-530s (or anything less than the i3-550) is way too cheap and lame, and I see plenty of reasons to go with the 550s over the 530s and none (compelling) the other way around.

Staff Member

My intention is to debate and so agree on at least a range of specs. You've almost completely sold me on the C2DI think it's most likely, but i3s all around is still reasonably likely.

Anyway I basically just used your graphics choices and the format, so don't flatter yourself too much.

You, sir, leave me no choice but to challenge you to a bet. The winnings? I-told-you-sos galore, and liberal use of sunglasses-smileys (up to 3 per post; other restrictions may apply).

*snip*

Click to expand...

I don't think this is a reason for a competition. I just have an itch that Apple will stick with C2D because of the GPU but that's just me, I of course hope that Apple moves away from them and sticks i3 in iMac. It took me some time to decide whether I jump for the C2D or i3 train. This is the first time Intel has came up with something suitable for low-end iMac so it indeed is a great time to get rid of C2D

Quote

I think my reasoning for the release trumps just following the pattern. We humans are wired to ascribe meaning to patterns, but just because there is a pattern doesn't necessarily mean something.

Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't but I'm basing my guess on it. It's not that great proof but I still keep my guess on August-September (there has only once been an update in July)

Quote

So we're keeping my latter specs as consensus until someone disagrees (we're tied and I get tie-breaking privileges as Starter of the Threadsorry, Hellhammah (if I may call you that)).

Click to expand...

As I said, this is not a reason for competition. There are plenty of replies to my guess on this thread but it still doesn't mean that I'm right as obviously, we don't know before the next gen is out

I also think early August is reasonable. July to early August seem right; delaying to September just because (no components to wait for, etc.unless the graphics, which I don't know anything about) doesn't make sense to me.

As far as specs, I think a Core i3 should be pretty standard by now, especially considering that Apple aims to be the "luxury" brand. It wouldn't make sense to buy a Lexus that has a crappier/weaker engine than a Honda Civic. On the other hand, many "All in Ones" from the PC camp are now just netbooks with larger screens (many sporting Atom processors) so that could give Apple the cover they need to save a few bucks by going with something a bit slower than they normally would have to.

- All iMacs will have some sort of Quad Core processor. MAYBE the base 21.5 will get stuck with the Core 2 Duo, in which case it'd be the 3.33 Ghz version currently available as a BTO option.

Click to expand...

The quads are more expensive to profit-hungry Apple, and they would negate the upselling to better models without really providing that much value to the bulk of iMac buyers (what with their web-browsing and such). The 3.33GHz Core 2 Duo costs twice the current choice, and its awwwwld (August 2008) and too much of a specialty production run for use in the base iMac.

- Perhaps Apple will increase the price as they did with the Mac Mini, back to the prices they used to charge a couple of years ago. The prices would then be $1299, $1599, $1799, and $2099. This is possible for a few reasons:

1. Apple has noticed that even during a major recession and economic downturn people continued to buy their products in record numbers (meaning they are price inelastic for the economists out there - so why leave money on the table if people are willing to spend it anyway).

Click to expand...

I think Apple would rather seize the momentum the growth that the Mac as a platform is having than make a little more short-term profit on the non-most-popular line of the Mac, which is itself decreasingly important to Apple's bottom line (meaning network effect in economist-speak). The mini price hike makes sense, since it's the lowliest Mac and was getting kinda cheapo for, as you well say, "luxury" Apple, but everywhere else the trend has been to price aggressively (iPad, iPhone, iPods) and to lower prices (MacBooks, iMacs).

2. Apple may need to distance the iMac more from the Mac Mini. At this point only $500 separates the Mini and the base iMac, yet with the iMac you get a faster processor, more RAM, bigger HD, a 21.5" IPS monitor (that alone is worth at least $400 even with 3rd party brands), good speakers, a wireless keyboard and a magic mouse. Not to mention less clutter since its all in one device. Hard to justify not getting an iMac unless you already have a keyboard, mouse, speakers and monitor that you are VERY happy with and don't plan to replace anytime soon (and don't mind the clutter).

Click to expand...

I think Apple would love it for people considering the mini to go for the iMac instead (considerably more profit, and a better experience). I think the competition for the iMac is not the mini but PCs.

You mean quality control? Yeah, the latest round of iMacs sound surprisingly faulty. Maybe the delay in bringing them out (if the specs are what we're speculating) is because they're making some structural changes to fix the problems.

Prices and dates seem to fit perfectly with my speculation above, with the base proc being the 3.2GHz i3-550, the base high-end model getting the 2.8GHz i5-760, and the BTO for it being the 3.067GHz i7-950.

Seems to me very likely that they'll come in July as I described (August for the quads also fits perfectly).

Prices and dates seem to fit perfectly with my speculation above, with the base proc being the 3.2GHz i3-550, the base high-end model getting the 2.8GHz i5-760, and the BTO for it being the 3.067GHz i7-950.

Seems to me very likely that they'll come in July as I described (August for the quads also fits perfectly).

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Aren't those new prices even higher than the ones in the current imacs? Guess we'll see a price raise than.

*all ati graphics are mobility
^ i dont know about the dual core i5s, intel is all lameo with their chipsets which no one likes... like what happened with the macbook pro i hope apple will rearrnge the components so that there will be better flow of air, space for intel hd graphics + radeon graphics (also 320m) faster fan speeds, and most of all.. a graphics switch ( i wouldnt mind the restart thingy.. no one is going to intel on a 21.5-27 inch imac... who would...)

just as apple is deciding to transition from the core 2 duoals to nehalem.. sandy bridge is coming... sad. imacs have had a taste of nehalem.. mac pros have outdate nehalems.. macbook pros have nehalems... mac mini still stuck with high clocks, xserve has outdated nehalems, macbook still has core.. THE NET REFRESH REALLY MUST INCLUDE NEHALEM ARCHITECTURE

I think you're right about 1.5TB and 750GB hard drives; I'm revising my specu specs to those. I don't think the 3.2GHz Core i5-650 makes sense for the base proc, since it's more expensive than the i3-550, the difference is not very significant, and it would make it (slightly) harder to upsell to higher models/BTOs.

Anything supporting your July guess?
Any particular dates you have in mind?

Click to expand...

The reasoning's in the first post, and to a lesser extent in other posts in the thread. Basically, the expected components are ready and it doesn't make sense to wait just because and miss out on the back-to-school season, the iPhone/iPad buzz, and most of the financial quarter.

I don't have any particular dates in mind, but with the reasons I gave and now at least three reports of suddenly delayed shipping times in this forum in the last few days, it wouldn't surprise me too much to see them on Tuesday (say, 20%* probability).

The last time the low-end got a significant CPU update was the transaction from PPC to Intel. It's been what, 5 years, not 1.5 years. Since that, Apple has used Core Duo or Core 2 Duo in all iMacs except in this gen's high-end. Last update bumped the CPU from 2.66GHz to 3.06GHz, that was the second biggest update since PPC to Intel. I just have an itch that Apple is sticking with C2D like in 13" MBP. Steve doesn't like Intel IGPs but seems to love NVidia IGPs. It also saves Apple from writing drivers to the low-end iMac if it uses 320M

Click to expand...

Like you, I don't think there will be significant CPU updates (especially the high-end). I don't think (early) 2011 will see a large CPU bump, unless they go AMD, and in that case it depends on clock speeds of quad-core Llano.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.